* Rusty Russell <ru...@rustcorp.com.au> wrote:
> Ingo Molnar <mi...@kernel.org> writes:
> > * Rusty Russell <ru...@rustcorp.com.au> wrote:
> >> I don't think there are great answers here. But adding more subtle
> >> zeroing
> >> semantics feels wrong, even if it will mostly Just Work.
> >
> > It's not subtle if the naming clearly reflects it (hence my suggestion to
> > rename
> > the API) - and the status quo for on-stack allocations is zeroing anyway,
> > so it's
> > not a big jump...
>
> True, but we already have zalloc_cpumask_var() though if we want that?
Indeed, didn't realize that.
> It probably makes sense to just switch everyone to that and get rid of the
> non-z
> one?
Yeah, I think this long-lived bug is a proper trigger for that. Lemme send a
2-patch series.
Thanks,
Ingo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
